Join Us on FB

EVENTS

The Slymepitters might benefit from this one

Apropos of everything relating to current discussions about misogyny, in the atheist/skeptical community as well as the world at large, John Scalzi boils everything you need to know down to a couple of sentences. Now go have a good weekend.

Comments

As you have Slymepitters pointed out in the title, did you mean to say those who participate on that forum are guilty of the following?

“If your response to a woman doing something you don’t like is to threaten her with rape and death, she’s not the problem.”

Or this?

“If your response to a woman is indistinguishable from an angry 14-year-old boy with poor impulse control, reconsider your response.”

If the former, could you please give examples as I haven’t seen it. A caveat here – the post rate on the SP forum is rather rapid so I miss quite a few things. If the later, sure. I can agree with that. There are many times when it seems like people are responding like angry teens. Though, it seems a bit sexist to assume only boys are capable of poor impulse control.

If your argument is based on what a lot of people tell you other people think, you should not be surprised when those people turn out to not be what you think they are, and react poorly to being told what they think by people who are not them.

In this post are 50 randomly chosen comments from Slymepitters featuring examples of the aforementioned behavior. Of course, the claims are already circulating that these are plants, fakes, “FtBully” trolls, etc.

No one is suggesting only boys are capable of poor impulse control. The discussion is about a particular kind of poor impulse control that boys happen to be exhibiting.

You’re saying members of the ‘pit threaten women with rape and/or death doing something they don’t like?

I am shocked, shocked to find out there is gambling in this establishment!

You’re saying members of the ‘pit are okay with threats of rape and/or death?

The ones who actually make such threats do seem to be. There may be some members of the ‘pit who object to such behavior. Why they are members of the ‘pit at all is a mystery best known to them, I suspect.

Also, why on earth should this only be advice to women, especially the second one?

I think you meant to ask why this should be advice only to men, since they are the ones being advised. In this case, it happens to be because rape and murder threats tend to be made, in the vast majority, by angry men against women, and very rarely vice versa. Sure, it happens, I suppose, and the second piece of advice does have a universal application.

Get a clue, Martin.

I would say the advice is pretty easily grasped and good for everyone. Are you suggesting there are grounds to disagree with it?

The point he’s trying to make is correct, but I don’t think he’s making it effectively.

If person A does something person B doesn’t like, and person B threatens person A with death or rape, person B is absolutely a problem. That doesn’t mean person A is automatically not a problem. While person B’s actions are reprehensible, it does not exempt person A’s actions from scrutiny.

I expect that’s what Scalzi *means*, but it’s not what he actually said.

And while you’re also not saying it explicitly, your remarks are teetering close to the kind of victim-blaming/blame-sharing derail these discussions always provoke. It’s a lot like suggesting, “Yes, that man is definitely in the wrong to commit rape, but that does not mean it was smart for that woman to have worn such a tight sweater and short skirt.”

Since I suspect you’re already revving up your “That wasn’t what I meant at all!” defense, let me forestall you. I believe you didn’t mean that, but that’s how it sounds. So let me respond succinctly to the point I think you were trying to make. Person A may have said the shittiest thing imaginable. If so, they should be called on it. But whatever scrutiny Person A’s statement does or does not deserve, Person B would always be in the wrong to reply to it with threats of violence.

So sure, Person A may be a deluxe super-sized asshole with extra large fries and a shake. But it’s a moot point. You don’t threaten anyone with rape or violence, ever, in any context.

Your comment could have been interpreted as suggesting that there may be situations in which the person leaving the threatening remark is provoked or goaded into doing so by their target, thus implying the provoker and the threatener share blame to some degree.

I can accept there are a number of posts on the Slymepit that aren’t exactly…what is the word….PC (or whatever the word d’jour is). Honestly. There are posts that I just slide past as they aren’t conducive to what I’m looking for. I’m looking for hypocrisy and illuminating that hypocrisy. I don’t give a crap about the Photoshops or rants about a person’s looks, age, or personal issue.

As to the issue with poor impulse control, John Scalzi’s post clearly indicates a belief that this sort of thing exists only with boys. As a mother of 2 teenage girls, I can tell you it’s not limited to the boys. Not at all.

“And while you’re also not saying it explicitly, your remarks are teetering close to the kind of victim-blaming/blame-sharing derail these discussions always provoke. It’s a lot like suggesting, ‘Yes, that man is definitely in the wrong to commit rape, but that does not mean it was smart for that woman to have worn such a tight sweater and short skirt.'”

As a mom of 3 teens (2 girls and 1 boy), I do inform them that they have a personal responsibility in as far as safety. If you know a certain place is not safe, you don’t go there. If you know certain practices aren’t safe, don’t partake in them. While not trying to “victim blame”, I do believe there is a good amount of personal responsibility when it comes to ensuring you don’t have bad things happen to you.

Once again, Martin, you disingenuous turd. Where are we making rape and/or death threats? The 50 comments Michael Nugent quote-mined from the ‘pit are not examples of people threatening other people (specifically women) with rape and/or death. There are no rape and/or death threats present in those examples, nor have there ever been anyone threatening anyone with rape and/or death on the Slymepit. Not on the Slymepit, or ERV. So what the fuck are you talking about? How about you show some intellectual honesty for once, yeah?

The tripe being where you indict the Slymepit and ‘pitters in a post giving advice to men not to threaten women with rape or death.

Yes, advice to men, my mistake. Why should this be advice explictly to men, exactly? Do you mean to imply that women don’t ever rape, that women don’t ever abuse?

@ A Hermit – Look here, you condescending halfwit. I’m not your son and frankly it’s creepy when you keep referring to me as such, so if you could find it in your old dried-husk of a dead thing (otherwise called a heart) to cut that out, I would appreciate it. Anyway. I have no idea what that discussion with Avicenna, which you go great lengths to strawman me in by the way (and what was it that someone said about looking at people’s thoughts uncharitably?), have to do with threatening people with rape and/or death. Was I threatening anyone? Did I threaten that woman?

Seriously, what the fuck are you (and Martin) on about? Grasping for straws? Are you really this desperate?

What does it say when you are not 14yrs old and instead of “reconsidering” you go on the offensive because it is totally a “character assassination” to call you a misogynist when you shout “dumb cunt” and “fucking bitch” at women you “disagree” with.

So, Ooolon, what is my motivation for responding to this post as you seem to hold the power of discernment (be very careful there)? As you monitor the Slymepit, would you say it’s simply because I saw this post being brought up there? Do you see me running off on all the blogs here and just willy-nilly posting because some other place brought it up? Or could you honestly state that perhaps this was something I’m actually interested in and am participating due to the fact that I’m not just arbitrarily cut off due to being a participant on the Slymepit?

Despite the small barking dog rhetoric you like to push out to people, some of us actually wish to intelligently and honestly engage people on FTB. Unfortunately, it’s not always an option with some bloggers here. I, for one, am glad and appreciative that The Atheist Experience doesn’t arbitrarily cut people off.

@ A Hermit – Look here, you condescending halfwit. I’m not your son and frankly it’s creepy when you keep referring to me as such, so if you could find it in your old dried-husk of a dead thing (otherwise called a heart) to cut that out, I would appreciate it. Anyway. I have no idea what that discussion with Avicenna, which you go great lengths to strawman me in by the way (and what was it that someone said about looking at people’s thoughts uncharitably?), have to do with threatening people with rape and/or death. Was I threatening anyone? Did I threaten that woman?

I call you “son” because you appear to be about the same age as my sons. But far less mature…

And I’m not strawmanning anything; I posted a link to your own words. people can judge what you said there for themselves…there is simply no way to read that comment “charitably” it’s a disgusting exercise in rape apologetics.

And there were two parts to the post above; the part about threatening and the part about sounding like a 14 year old with no impulse control. Read it again. The latter part clearly applies to you and your slymepit friends.

A Hermit – It’s a disgusting exercise in rape apologetics where I neither a) excuse the rape or b) excuse the men commiting the rape. Clearly one of us suffers from cognitive dissonance.

But I’m willing to say I’m wrong when I’m wrong, and I was. Completely and utterly. 100%. If I could remove it, I would, but it’s there now and I have to stand for it. So there you go.

Indeed, the 14-year old response with no impulse control. Let’s consider that. Currently there are about 20 or so active women at the ‘pit (there are more registered) and yet for some reason the population of men at the ‘pit have been able to control their impulses around these women. Pretty damn impressive for people who allegedly has none. Maybe Renee Hendricks could tell you more, having been a member for quite a while now. Or if you did the intellectually honest thing and actually visited the ‘pit and see how it’s like for yourself, then maybe you would realise just how much bullshit this post by Wagner addressed to the Slymepit really is. But that would require the impulse control of a 14-year old, so I guess not.

I call you “son” because you appear to be about the same age as my sons.

By the way, haven’t you chuckleheads realised that ‘what about the menz’ as a dismissal is a form of Dear Muslima?

It is. In this post, Martin Wagner links to a post by John Scalzi where they specially address men that they shouldn’t threaten women with rape or death. I ask if women haven’t ever raped or abused (or issued rape or death threats) and someone (predictably) responds with ‘what about the menz’. Well, what about the ‘menz’? Surely you’re not implying that men’s issues on rape and abuse should be marginalized next to the issues of rape and abuse suffered by women? Are you? Oolon?

There is a difference between “..but that does not mean it was smart for that woman to have worn such a tight sweater and short skirt.’” and ‘She certainly should not have gone down that dark alley where the gang of thugs were comparing the size of their knives’. Personal responsability does not relate to clothing.

If you’re not big on marginalizing, dismissing men’s issues on rape next to women’s issues on rape (like your dear oolon) is a Dear Muslima. In other words, if Dawkins was wrong, then oolon (and Martin) is wrong. Scalzi is wrong. Is Wagner saying that men don’t get death threats? Rape threats? That men don’t get treated with childish indignation? (See: A Hermit’s response to me.)

And PyCon is an example of women being mistreated? Really? Give me a fucking break.

Really now, you had a go at me for not being charitable to Ophelia Benson. This is beyond uncharitable. You are being obtuse.

It’s a disgusting exercise in rape apologetics where I neither a) excuse the rape or b) excuse the men commiting the rape. Clearly one of us suffers from cognitive dissonance.

You actually deny that it was even rape if it was “only” fingers that penetrated the unconscious, defenseless woman’s vagina. And you deny that any harm was caused because she was unconscious.

But I’m willing to say I’m wrong when I’m wrong, and I was. Completely and utterly. 100%. If I could remove it, I would, but it’s there now and I have to stand for it. So there you go.

Good for you! There may be hope for you yet…

Indeed, the 14-year old response with no impulse control. Let’s consider that. Currently there are about 20 or so active women at the ‘pit (there are more registered) and yet for some reason the population of men at the ‘pit have been able to control their impulses around these women.

But not around the women they keep hurling insults at and photoshopping and mocking and trolling after on Twitter and obsessively blogging about…etc. etc.

Or if you did the intellectually honest thing and actually visited the ‘pit and see how it’s like for yourself,

Been there. Done that. More than once. Needed a hot shower afterwards…

Ah, the “PC” accusation! That’s an excellent way to be dismissive of someone’s complaints that are sexist, racist, or homophobic, isn’t it?

“Oh, yes, you don’t like Slymepit comments because they’re not PC!” being a way of saying, “Awww, you’re just too sensitive! Grow a pair! Stop being so delicate! You just can’t take a joke!” Is that not what you’re really trying to say by labelling the comments as “not PC (or whatever the word d’jour is)”?

Actually, I think the “word d’jour” is “insulting and derogatory”. I know, these wacky PC feminists not wanting to be threatened with rape and murder (jokingly! HAHA!)! Hard to keep up with their terminology.

Second, she [Steubenville victim] was fingered. While this would fall into molestation or sexual assault, it wouldn’t fall into the category of rape.

The FBI’s definition of rape:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

That makes you a rape denier, Pitchguest. I hope you’ve got an apology forthcoming, and fast.

But I’m willing to say I’m wrong when I’m wrong, and I was. Completely and utterly. 100%. If I could remove it, I would, but it’s there now and I have to stand for it. So there you go.

… Oh. I do wonder if you would have dismissed rape as easily if it were a man being penetrated, but that’s neither here nor there. You’ve given something that was reasonably close to an apology. Thanks, Pitchguest.

I’d say that if your response to anybody who disagrees with or criticizes some particular aspect of your feminism, is to immediately equate that person with the people who threat women with rape and death, then the problem is not that person. It’s you.

To many feminists it seems an impossible idea that someone might have some actual criticism, without them being a woman-hating men’s right activist or an “accommodationist tone troll”. Anybody who doesn’t fully agree with them is immediately lumped into the same category.

It’s one thing to simply disagree with the criticism that’s being presented. Everybody is, naturally, entitled to defend their position and behavior (preferably with civil, rational arguments.) However, when the responses immediately sink to wild accusations, reading between the lines and namecalling with no justification whatsoever, I think it’s quite clear where the problem lies.

Hendricks does have a point. If you compare surveys which collect police reports to surveys which ask people directly, you find that men really do under-report.

How badly? Let’s take Canada’s numbers, via StatCan. By plunking their values into a spreadsheet, I was able to figure out that men are about half as likely to report a sexual assault. In practice, that means the ratio of female to male victims drops from 11:1, based on police reports, to…. 5:1.

If you can get men to readily admit to illegal or depraved acts in large numbers, it should be easy to trick them into revealing they’ve been sexually assaulted. That no-one has managed to do that, in three decades of research on rape and sexual violence, suggests it ain’t so.

Fair enuff, but if I was reading he Slymepit I suspect I would have been here a lot quicker? Your motivation is I assume that someone brought this thread up on the pit. The would have prefaced their link and call to arms with something calm like “FfTBs are calling us all rapists!!11 eleventy!” … At which point you and the rest of the slimy horde feel compelled to come over here to put FtBs straight?

I dunno maybe it was not on the pit and Twitter was used…. I’d assume a similar pattern however.

“Dear Muslima” is condescendingly putting down someone’s experience because a similar demographic has a much harder time elsewhere. The implication being you should STFU about your experience.

“What about teh menz!” in this context is a parody of your opinion that whenever womens plight is mentioned that somehow diminishes mens experiences of physical and sexual violence. It doesn’t, its ridiculous, a non sequitur, hence the ridiculous sarcasm. Rather than “STFU men”, its more “WTF, men?”

One positive about “son” is that you are right PG is young. I did think him some old fart stuck to his computer spouting shit given how obdurate he is, so there is hope he meets someone gets a life and gets a different perspective. Hopefully he won’t always be such a terrible asshole. His opinions about rape and sneering condescension towards any woman expressing emotion online is not a good sign.

He was on another forum online with feminists who challenged him, not that any of it seemed to get through, but he was challenged by people in his “community” at least. Now he is at the pit he will just get cheered on for whatever disgusting opinions he expresses, the echo chamber there will likely reinforce his assholery never challenge him. So I reckon you’ll be calling him “son” for some time.

What’s really funny is how quickly the “no right to get offended, grow a thicker skin” refrain gets abandoned when they’re on the receiving end. Women getting rape threats are supposed to just ignore it, shake it off, toughen up etc; they’ll write whole epigraphs parsing all the possible meanings of “cunt” and explaining why no one should be expected to stop using it to insult women….and they are all “Brave Heroes” for courageously continuing to call people “bitches” and worse…

…but I call a kid “son” because, judging by the picture on his youtube account ( I first tangled with him on youtube, I didn’t go looking for him) he’s about the same as as my sons and that makes me “creepy” and I should stop using that horrible offensive word!

Scalzi’s wrong? Okay, just for the sake of discussion, please explain the context in which one is justified in threatening anyone (man or woman, but of course, those of us who live in reality know women get it worse) with rape and death. And how does one conclude that, if Dawkins was wrong about his “Dear Muslima” remarks, Scalzi is wrong about what he’s discussing? Where is the logical path there, making Scalzi’s wrongness the necessary result of Dawkins’?

As you’re evidently an expert on what really constitues mistreatment of women (regardless of what the women involved think), I’m sure your explanations will be edifying.

Hehe I know what you mean. But given how much PG and pals employ that technique on Michael Nugents blog you have to assume its intentional… Work out what you think your opponents believe then try and find any example where one of their opponents could possibly be seen to break their moral code and claim hypocrisy. Even though they don’t believe any of it and think all and any “just words” are fair game. Not the most intelligent rhetorical game in town…

No you seem to be taking the most unfortunate interpretation of the link – there are two quotes you know. Also this is dubious ->

To[o] many feminists it seems [thinks its] an impossible idea that someone might have some actual criticism, without them being a woman-hating men’s right activist or an “accommodationist tone troll”. Anybody who doesn’t fully agree with them is immediately lumped into the same category.

Given I had to edit quite a bit to get any sense out of it there appears to be an issue with you confusing your own experience, which may be flawed, with some general point. This is also a point that is again MRA 101 — feminists have “dogma” they don’t “listen” and anyone that “disagrees” is dismissed or “insulted” by their misogyny being pointed out –> Looks you are saying something along those lines to me…. Strangely not at all true as I see feminists disagreeing all the time so whose experience is correct? Disagreeing partly because the term “feminist” is so broad. Someone who is literally not a feminist would be very unlikely to have anything to contribute given feminist means someone who wants equality for women. It would be a bit like arguing the KKK have good “arguments” the civil rights movement should listed to. Some one who suffers from straw-feminism to the degree you appear to would also be unlikely to contribute anything of worth as you’d go into any conversation assuming you’ll be dismissed and blame any dismissal on feminists not your own poor argument. Nice way to avoid having to do any work and understand the area enough to have an argument!

I’m making the point that Hendricks and Pitchguest are the hypocrites. They will turn up in comments to insist that women who are being called “bitch” and “cunt” have no right to be offended, should grow thicker skins etc.etc. then turn around and get offended when much milder language (like “son” or “daughter”) is applied to them. For Hendriclks to defend the slymepit’s culture of abuse and go after people like Ophelia Benson for objecting to being called “cunts” and then turn around and tell me she would be insulted if I called her “daughter” (which I never have…) is laughable and I was mocking that double standard.

Referring to a woman you disagree with as a “little girl” is sexist whatever way you want to try to paint it. My assertion stands you are a hypocrite and you are sexist. You demanded an acknowledgement and apology for their sexism, so I expect the same from you. Or is it only sexism when someone else is doing it?

Have you honestly never encountered any criticism whatsoever of the type of radical feminism that’s common in atheist communities, or are you just playing dumb?

Well, if you want to see an example, see Thunderf00t’s videos on the subject. (This is not meant to start a discussion of whether Thunderf00t is correct or not. It’s meant to say that there is criticism of certain feminist behavior which is made by people who are most certainly not woman-hating misogynist mens’ rights activists who threaten to rape and murder women.)

so generalizing a presupposed radical fringe feminist movement as a representation of the full feminist movement seems very legit. Why stop there. why not state that the Westboro baptist church represents all of Christianity, al-qaeda represents all of Islam and Orthodox jews Represents all Jews.

Feminist Majority Foundation is an American based organisation that fights for Birth controll acces and access to reproductive health centres and other female health issues.

FeministIndia fight against rape and sexworkers rights while Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) been fighting for female access to school

And even global organisations Like the Global fund for women that is funded by the UN. and the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women.

They must be all taken over by those radical Feminist you are talking about!

So your argument seems to be, basically, “since that criticism is not valid against all feminist groups, it’s not valid against us either.”

The people who criticize the kind of secular feminists like PZ Myers and Skepchick are not criticizing feminist movements in general. In fact, most of them are not criticizing feminism in itself, but the (quite widespread) attitude that certain feminists have in atheist communities.

Basically what you are saying here is: “You accuse us of generalizing all criticism as MRA misogyny? Well, you are generalizing too!”

well you stated that a type of radical feminism is common in atheist communities. but that is just downplayed to 2 people of one that is just an online individual. and PZ myers, who is also active on the net Atheism is just a diverse group. if you don’t want to get involved with the feminist approach you can always make your own community or just ignore it.. feminism and the whole debate about its seems to be only localized on the internet and some area’s of the US. And no one is forcing the online community, since this feminist idea isn’t a real life global movement, to accept the feminist approach with atheism

There are lost of aspects in the Atheist community that i don’t agree. Like Atheist vegans. Some are worse than Peta. Other examples Raeliens and Atheist new age Buddhist.

Hey Martin I know I’m a little late on this but I just saw the post . I’d like to give you credit for the title. “The Slymepitters might benefit from this one ” There are over 600 members of the slymepit forum. Their opinions and methods are various. To suggest the default response from any slymepit member to any disagreement with a woman includes rape or death is not only irresponsible but it is deceptive. It also suggests you may be unable to grasp the scope of the disagreement. Here’s a little bit of information that might help. Posts like this one are part of the problem. If you think suggesting anyone from the slymepit thinks it’s okay to threaten women or displays the maturity of an upset 14 y/o is helpful, do everyone a favor and stop helping. Your type of help is not helping. The problem is obviously too complicated for you to understand. Sorry .

Your petulant indignation is noted, but it’s a matter of record that there are a number of active participants in the Slymepit who engage in misogynist invective, both in the forum and elsewhere. And as for not appreciating being mischaracterized, fair enough, but just remember that the next time anyone over there goes into the usual rant about how FtB are a bunch of bullying cultists who hate free speech.

Well, not exactly. If you threaten with death regardless of gender, you’re just an asshole… misoginy is not necessarily implied in the way the original post suggested.

Similarly, anatomy based slurs or invectives are not necessarily proof of misoginy as you might use those gender neutrally. E.g. “fucking prick”/”fucking cunt”. General asshole-ness is probably not best combated by painting it with the misoginy brush.

I’d even argue that death threats might, on occasion, be quite warranted – but i’m hard pressed to see how on an internet forum.

One of the bits where the misogyny comes in is the proportions. People have done actual studies, in video games and other online forums. They go in with prewritten lines, in video games and on message boards. Then, they tally and quantify the abuse that comes back, as a result.

The female voices and female profiles soaked up something like 3 or 5 times the abuse as the male voices, just in terms of quantity. Plus, the quality of the abuse was far more violent and sexual, on average, when directed against the female voices and profiles.